Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 28[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 28, 2016.

Name of Luxembourg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. There's four possibilities that have been discussed here: keeping it as is, retargeting to Luxembourg, retargeting to History of Luxembourg and deletion, all with their pros and cons. The various targets discussed all explain the 'Name of Luxembourg' to various degrees, so from a reader's perspective, there really isn't anything wrong with any of these targets. Without any agreement one way or another, the status quo will remain. -- Tavix (talk) 01:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit of a WP:SURPRISE. While the etymology of "Luxembourg" is at the target article, you'd expect Luxembourg itself as more logical place for that information. It's not there, though it is at History of Luxembourg. That looks like the better target of the two right now, though ultimately it probably belongs at the country article. BDD (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Luxembourg, which mentions "Lucilinburhuc"" (from which the modern name "Luxembourg" is derived), though I wish the article explained the etymology of the country's name. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a redirect to Luxembourg City#History. One would expect Name of Luxembourg to point to the place where the etymology of the world Luxembourg is explained, and the best place for this is the Luxembourg City article, because the country takes its name from the city (as hinted by -bourg), not the other way around. Actually, it takes its name from the Duchy, which takes its name from the city. Place Clichy (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Confusingly ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Matterfall[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any connection between the redirect title and its target. It's possible that the redirect title is a game which was or will be published in the specified year, but the redirect isn't useful as the category page doesn't mention this. Stefan2 (talk) 11:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to encourage article creation, or Redirect to Housemarque which is its developer. It's got some coverage by gaming websites and magazines. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preference to redirection to the developer, which is a typical solution with video game redirects, but I won't be hardover if someone comes along with a WP:REDLINK deletion reason. --Izno (talk) 11:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If I were playing this game and searching for it on the internet, a redirect to a Wikipedia category would be useless. A redirect to the publisher's article would also be useless. Somebody searching for this game probably wants a walkthrough or game play tips outside the scope of Wikipedia. If somebody actually wants to find encyclopedic material on this game (release date/platforms, critical reception, development history, etc.), Wikipedia can serve that need with an article. Delete redirect to encourage creation of a useful article from a red link. Plantdrew (talk) 06:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK to encourage article creation. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Zhixun, Xu[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. The discussion has demonstrated that this redirect is incorrect and serves little purpose. Deryck C. 11:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who will type given name, comma, surname for a name? I don't see the Michael, Jackson redirect. Timmyshin (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I see what you're saying now. While I enjoy the {{R from sort name}} redirects, it doesn't make sense from names using the eastern name order. I'll ping the creator, BD2412, to get his input on the matter. -- Tavix (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest that westerners unfamiliar with Eastern name order would be likely to assume that the name order is given name, surname, and might search accordingly. bd2412 T 21:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per BD2412. Plausible search for people looking for the target page if they are not familiar with Eastern name order. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep as plausible error but please do not tag things like this as {{R from sort name}} when you create them; use {{R from incorrect name}} instead. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 03:57, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, delete and optionally create the valid {{R from rearrangement}} Zhixun Xu instead. If someone types Zhixun into the search box (either because they don't know which part is the surname, or they can't remember someone's surname) they'll get to where they're trying to go. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 04:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 210.6.254.106. This search term is kind of plausible (although still below my plausibility threshold), but it's much better serviceable by the search engine. Uanfala (talk) 13:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 210.6.254.106 and because the comma is not part of the person's common names. I would go ahead and create the western formatted name. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, nevermind, do not create the Western names. These refer to people from the 10th century, which the WP:CHINESE MOS for Asian names enforces an Eastern-style name. The Western version is not used in any literature. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Knock, Ireland[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 02:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose retargetting to Knock#Republic of Ireland, because there is more than one place in Ireland named Knock. SSTflyer 15:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Glenn abbott cricketer[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OnionRing tried to fix this broken redirect, but this cannot be right though, for the following reasons. First of all, parentheses are missing around the last word. Second, Glenn Abbott (2 ns) is not a cricketer and has nothing to do with the cricketer Glen Abbott (1 n; this is also why, as a page mover, I have suppressed the redirect while moving Glenn abbott (cricketer)). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up: turns out I should have redirected to Glen Abbott (the cricketer), and not Glenn Abbott (the baseball player). I've now fixed my error, and I'll stick a dab hatnote on both now. Sorry for making you share my confused and febrile mental state. :-) OnionRing (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Pow Sows[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. -- Tavix (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search-term. Yellow Dingo (talk) 07:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment appears to be the Cornish language name of the target. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 10:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would far prefer to see this retargetted to somewhere that actually discusses "Pow Sows". Redirects are not a system for implementing a translation dictionary; a user who looks up this name wants actual encyclopedic information about it. In previous discussions, we've retargetted non-English names to "names of Fooland" where they are actually discussed. Incidentally we have a very well-developed Terminology of the British Isles article, but it gives the Cornish name for England as "Pow an Sawson" rather than "Pow Sows". 210.6.254.106 (talk) 10:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 210.6.254.106, is the Cornish name for England [1]. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:FORRED #1. SSTflyer 00:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Yankee land[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. The discussion below has shown that there isn't a single primary topic for these titles. Deryck C. 11:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term. Yellow Dingo (talk) 07:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Book searches show a bunch of old books that use the term. However there's no clear target for this. Maybe Yankee? There are mentions of Yankeeland and Dixieland, but Dixieland there refers to Dixie and not the music style. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:4[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to WP:Four Award.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Wikipedia:Four Award. Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

WP:GAC[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Keep. Withdrawn by nominator. Redrose64 (talk) 13:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Withdrawn by nominator) Makes no sense as is. People are expecting this to go to WP:Good article criteria. WP:GAN, which does make sense, already goes to WP:Good article nominations. I understand this is a long-established shortcut, but most uses of it are in talk page discussions, and soon enough most of those will be out of date anyway. Considerations of future use and confused newbies should take precedent over old use. We might consider putting a hatnote at WP:Good article nominations noting the change so anyone who clicks the shortcut in old discussions isn't left hanging. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 06:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC), withdrawn 07:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think it was created because people are used to WP:FAC for featured article candidates so GAC could mean "good article candidates". - Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not incorrect, but that was a long time ago. WP:GAN has existed since 2006—more than plenty of time for people to get used to the new one since WP:Good article candidates was moved to WP:Good article nominations in 2007. More importantly, this unnecessarily confuses newbies. Retarget and hatnote at the old target is the way to go. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 07:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is - I only started writing GAs in 2012, and for the first six months GAC was my go-to redirect. I don't understand the assumption that everyone has followed the GAN redirect since 2006. As YD says, the C is used to mean "candidates" for a number of different processes (WP:ITNC, WP:FPC, WP:FLC, WP:FAC). It is thus more logical for a newish editor to think that GAC goes to the candidates (erm, nomination) page. We already have WP:GA? for the criteria, also following a long line of similar redirects (WP:FA?, WP:FP?, WP:FL? etc.) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As a (relative) newbie myself, I can attest firsthand that WP:GAC not following the initialism of the actual page threw me for a loop. Perhaps, since no one types in the full thing and there would be a {{r from move}} left behind anyway, it should be restored to "Good article candidates" for the sakes of consistency and common-sense shortcuts? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 07:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_28&oldid=1138581095"